Help me name three classes

[Irda Ranger]

My attempt at class names which describe their most likely personal character (as in their emotional makeup; what 'character' means in real life):

Class 1 - Stalwart
Class 2 - Inerrant
Class 3 - Cheater

Ok, I'm not sold on that last one. I'm trying to come up with something that says "The guy who takes the most direct method to victory, doesn't play by preconceived rules, and just wins." That's why he trips, disarms, backstabs, etc. Whatever works. But "Pragmatic" doesn't quite cover it either, since it doesn't capture to always-indirect, all-the-time nature of his style.

 

[ppaladin123]

My attempt at class names which describe their most likely personal character (as in their emotional makeup; what 'character' means in real life):

Class 1 - Stalwart
Class 2 - Inerrant
Class 3 - Cheater

Ok, I'm not sold on that last one. I'm trying to come up with something that says "The guy who takes the most direct method to victory, doesn't play by preconceived rules, and just wins." That's why he trips, disarms, backstabs, etc. Whatever works. But "Pragmatic" doesn't quite cover it either, since it doesn't capture to always-indirect, all-the-time nature of his style.

Maybe class 3 can be called, "driven." or "expedient."

 

[Irda Ranger]

"expedient."

Nice, nice ...

 

[Irda Ranger]

Actually, I am really, really digging these second round of names. And I will tell you why.

In the game I am developing each PC has three basic elements - Race, Class and Profession. Race is self explanatory; Class is your combat style; and Profession is a collection of non-combat skills and roleplaying guidance. Professions include stuff like Ranger, Soldier, Wanderer, Scoundrel, Knight, etc.

So until now I had pictured PCs as being "Shieldsman Rangers" or "Irregular Wanders."

But now they're Stalwart Knights, Inerrant Rangers and Expedient Scoundrels. Doesn't that sound waaaaay better? I think so.

Duuude. Sweeet.

 

[Orius]

I've started a bit of a project which may prove too great for me, but I hope you might take a moment to help me in a small way. I am working on an RPG of personal design and I have come to a very important step: naming the classes. There are only four, so this won't take long.

Only four classes?

Fighter, cleric, mage, and thief. How hard can it be?

We can skip the first class (magic-user) because my only choice here is which of the many good choices I have to choose from (Wizard, Mage, Sorcerer, Magician, etc.) I will use. Lots of choices is good.

Told ya.

Class #1 - the Tank.

This guy is the weapon & board specialist. If I felt like ripping off Monte Cook I could call him "Armiger" or "Warmain". In 4E-speak he's the Defender, but I don't want to suggest that his only role is to protect the other PCs. Also, Fighter is too broad (everyone fights).

Meh, fighter's good enough. Everyone knows the fighter's the tank and the weapon specialist. Yeah, it's generic. It's also about as unconfusing as you can get. If you don't want fighter, warrior works just as well. Man-at-arms or something like hoplite might work as alternatives as well.

Really, you said the roles are fairly broad, so the names themselves probably should be broad as well, rather than something narrow.

Class #2 - the DPS guy.

Hand-eye coordination and careful strikes are this guy's trademark. The Monte Cook ripoff here would be Unfettered. He's a Striker in 4e lingo (though that's too broad, like Fighter), and equally capable with TWF, archery and dueling with rapier and buckler. Mainly he just doesn't use heavy shields and armor.

Ranger. *shrug*

Ranger's usually associated with archery and TWF in gaming anyway, so again, using a familiar term will make things easier for the players.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Meh, fighter's good enough. Everyone knows the fighter's the tank and the weapon specialist. Yeah, it's generic. It's also about as unconfusing as you can get. If you don't want fighter, warrior works just as well. Man-at-arms or something like hoplite might work as alternatives as well.

All three of the classes I am trying to name is a "fighter." Heck, the magic-user class is a fighter too (think Gandalf with Glamdring). So it's clearly overly broad.

Ranger. *shrug*

Ranger's usually associated with archery and TWF in gaming anyway, so again, using a familiar term will make things easier for the players.

There are two things wrong with this argument (as well as your "Everyone knows ..." argument above).

One, "Ranger" is not a fighting style. Being a Ranger is about walking through dark places and guarding the points of light from encroaching darkness; about going into the heart of the darkness and seeking its source. It's about tracking a foe across hundreds of miles of moor and windy hill and knowing the herb lore of the ancient lands. Rangers stand on the bridge, and no one may pass. From a literary point of view, the Ranger could be any of Stalwart (Wulfgar), Inerrant (Legolas) or Expedient (Marcus Cole).

Second, I am not writing a game that requires knowledge of D&D or having played Neverwinter Nights or read Icewind Dale. D&D's preconceptions of "Fighter" and "Ranger" don't apply here. I'm going back to the source material that the majority of potential (new) gamers will be familiar with (Tolkien, Howard, Rowling, Feist, etc.) and building up from there.

 

[Starbuck_II]

The three melee sorts are being a problem though because they are broadly conceived classes. I will describe their fighting style and role, and the names I have chosen (but am not entirely happy with) and hope for good feedback.

Class #1 - the Tank.

This guy is the weapon & board specialist. If I felt like ripping off Monte Cook I could call him "Armiger" or "Warmain". In 4E-speak he's the Defender, but I don't want to suggest that his only role is to protect the other PCs. Also, Fighter is too broad (everyone fights).

Because sword & board is his "thing" I've been using "Shieldsman", as the heavily armored warriors of history (Roman Legions, Crusaders, Hoplites, etc.) always had shields (unless they were fighting in a dense pike formation, which is quite rare in D&D). Of the three I think this one is named the most appropriately, but I am open to other suggestions.

Warblade, yes it is a D&D class, but the name works.

You mean warriors (that is where War comes in) and sword (bladed weapons thus Blade).

Whe Sword and board: that isn't much a Fighter thing.
Alternatively, Defender. It says what you want.

Class #2 - the DPS guy.

Hand-eye coordination and careful strikes are this guy's trademark. The Monte Cook ripoff here would be Unfettered. He's a Striker in 4e lingo (though that's too broad, like Fighter), and equally capable with TWF, archery and dueling with rapier and buckler. Mainly he just doesn't use heavy shields and armor.

Because he's good with anything where careful strikes beats brute force a lot of the regular names I see bandied about (such as Duelist) are inappropriate because it rules out Legolas. Likewise, "Archer" rules out Inigo Montoya. And this class should allow both of those builds. I have been using "Marksman", but I am not satisfied with it.

Swashbuckler, Rogue, or Montoya (why not name it after the guy).

Really, Rogue fits this theme really well. Only issue is some people can't name rogues (some say rouge).
Other issue is some think theif due to 1.0 and 2.0 D&D made them thiefs.

Class #3 - The "Irregular"

That's the name I've been using. Unlike the Shieldsman and Marksman (who do regular damage), the Irregular is about neutralizing a single opponent using Trip, Disarm, Unarmed Attack, Grapple, Backstab, Strangle, and other "unconventional" tactics. He's Jason Bourne, Bruce Lee, and/or Batman.

I don't like "Martial Artist" because (even if the terms are linguistically neutral) the term has become too associated with Eastern martial arts and Mr. Miyagi. Monk is worse. I don't want any brain freeze from preventing someone from playing a Greek Pankration competitor or a Holy Assassin of Sultan Rashid (all of whom should be good builds under this class).

So, any suggestions for any one or all three?

Irregular is a fine name. Avant-garde fits what you want is a fancy name.

The problem is Batman, Bruce Lee, and Jason are martial Artist by both modern and historical terms. Batman was trained by ninja.
It is just people forget the true meanings of words.

So Avant-garde is best for non-conventional I think.

 

[Andor]

Running with you 'class as adjective' idea you can set it so that all three class names describe the same sort of idea.

Movement:
1) Immoveable
2) Fleet
3) Unstoppable

Attitude:
1) Unbending
2) Vicious (lethal?)
2) Inexorable

Fighting style:
1) Stalwart
2) Nimble
3) Brutal

Philosophy:
1) Guardian
2) Killer
3) Pragmatist

 

[Irda Ranger]

Running with you 'class as adjective' idea you can set it so that all three class names describe the same sort of idea.

Movement:
1) Immoveable
2) Fleet
3) Unstoppable

Attitude:
1) Unbending
2) Vicious (lethal?)
2) Inexorable

Fighting style:
1) Stalwart
2) Nimble
3) Brutal

Philosophy:
1) Guardian
2) Killer
3) Pragmatist

Clearly someone took his Awesome Pills this morning.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Irregular is a fine name.

Now that I think about it though, "Irregular" can be an adjective too. It suggests to me that the PC needs more fiber.

The problem is Batman, Bruce Lee, and Jason are martial Artist by both modern and historical terms. Batman was trained by ninja.

It is just people forget the true meanings of words.

Agreed, but common perception must be considered. I'd rather not use a word that many readers will misconstrue.